Defense Secretary-designate Leon Panetta gained vast government experience as a reform-minded member of the House, where he chaired the Budget Committee. He later served in the White House as President Bill Clinton’s director of the Office of Management and Budget and then chief of staff. He aimed to put America’s financial accounts on a path to balance by the year 2000. He succeeded.

The longest military engagements in U.S. history have achieved exemplary results at significant human cost. Multiple deployments, 5,885 deaths, thousands of permanent disabilities, inadequate dwell time, broken families, historic levels of suicide by soldiers and even family members and more than $2 trillion in treasure — all demand that our nation set firm timetables to complete the military mission and turn operations over to civilian control.

U.S. soldiers should not be expected to do nation-building. Ensuring success halfway around the world requires robust engagement of the world community — starting with neighboring nations whose backyards adjoin the undemocratic societies in which our soldiers bear the burden of order.

One cannot transfuse democracy at the tip of a sword. People in those societies should aspire to a better future for themselves — and be willing to sacrifice for it.

• Balance security concerns with budget realities

The need to cut war-induced federal deficits, both in the short term and long term, means that all spending must be on the table — including defense. It now makes up 20 percent of annual federal spending. Military leaders under Panetta must be resourceful, efficient and visionary to save dollars, while keeping our commitment to the troops and without compromising our national security.

The killing of Osama bin Laden is likely to further disrupt the capacity of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, allowing the U.S. to continue to withdraw forces from Iraq and begin an orderly drawdown from Afghanistan. Even so, the U.S. must maintain, as the Obama administration has pledged, a strong and agile military that is well trained and well equipped.

The new secretary recognizes the importance of hard power and soft power and understands that America must not only be militarily strong, but financially sound.

• Reining in the contractors

The increase in the use of contractors demands special scrutiny at the highest levels for three reasons:

a. Morale in the ranks

Insourcing military functions back to DoD is necessary — not just for prudent management of taxpayer dollars but morale in the ranks. When an E5 guard pilot, who enlisted at basic pay, sees contractors earning five times as much and operating by different rules of the road, there is a serious breakdown in the value set of service. Indeed the very meaning of military service changes from “duty” to “job.” Long term, this will corrupt the military code of honor and needs to be reined in now.

b. Security

Significant outsourcing of Pentagon duties to contractors increases the likelihood of security breaches. The military is aware this has even occurred in theater.

I can recall my shock at seeing signs posted in Iraq’s Green Zone: “No Alcohol on Base.” These were meant to curb contractor abuse. But what a poor message this sends to our regular forces. Military service should be exactly that – service to our nation, not one’s wallet.

c. Cost savings

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has left a goal of reducing service-support contractors by 10 percent each year for three years. Yet the FY 2012 budget seems to contradict this goal — since it contains funding to support growing contracted services. DoD proposes spending at least $87.6 billion next year on contracted services — $23.7 billion more than requested in FY 2011 and a 38 percent increase!

This increase in contractor spending flies in the face of a congressionally mandated inventory of contractors that the department has been derelict in providing. Hopefully, this is a lapse that Panetta can rectify early in his tenure.

• Regaining U.S. energy independence

The Pentagon, as the largest petroleum user in the world, must lead our nation forward to energy independence. No challenge could be more vital to national security and economic security interests. High fuel costs are causing a hardship on American families, to be sure — but also on our service branches.

Even before the oil companies and Wall Street speculators drove up the price of gasoline close to $4 a gallon, the landed cost of a gallon delivered to the front lines for our troops in Afghanistan cost more than $400.

The Marines, the Navy and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus have been pacesetters among the service branches in developing alternatives to petroleum. Mabus told our subcommittee earlier this year, “Energy consumption in the Navy and Marine Corps has become a strategic vulnerability, an operational Achilles’ heel and a readiness challenge.”

The Navy and Marine Corps have set the goal to generate at least 50 percent of all the energy they use come from alternative sources no later than 2020. This is leadership. Panetta would be well served to expand this vision department-wide. Regaining U.S. energy independence is the national security issue of our time.

I look forward to working with Mr. Panetta and our subcommittee as we work together to put the Defense Department on a sustainable path to meet our nation’s vital needs in the 21st century.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) is on the Budget and Defense subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee.